Let’s hope that Romney’s ready for this.”Are you really telling the nation,Mr President,that you don’t recognize this as a stalling tactic by the mullahs in Tehran? Remember,Mr President,these are the same mullahs who’ve been recently exposed by the IAEA as engaging in deception *and* who routinely call for the destruction of Israel”.

6
posted on 10/21/2012 11:26:50 AM PDT
by Gay State Conservative
(Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive)

And Romney should be prepared to quickly say, “Yeah! Like we can trust Iran to keep their word! This is nothing but a delaying tactic, with which they’ve been stringing along this administration for the past 3-1/2 years!”

8
posted on 10/21/2012 11:32:22 AM PDT
by jeffc
(The U.S. media are our enemy)

Obama has been making and breaking promises for 3 1/2 years now, no one believes him any more.

Will he now introduce a new set of promises, regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations?

Which liar (Obama or Ahmanutjob) should I believe? The correct answer would be "none of the above".

Obama has hounded Romney for "details" for every initiative he's proposed. Time to turn the tables: when do the inspectors get to go in? Full access to all sites? What about the sites we don't know about?

We went through this before with N. Korea and they played us for fools, running out the clock until they had the bomb. The Iranians only have to shine us on for three weeks and it will never be mentioned again, IMHO.

10
posted on 10/21/2012 11:35:11 AM PDT
by ZOOKER
( Exploring the fine line between cynicism and outright depression)

I don’t get it. How is this a win? It is obviously a capitulation at best if not outright aiding an enemy. I don’t see how it can be sold as a triumph. No one believes that Iran will abide by the rules. Everyone knows that it is merely a stalling tactic to get sanctions lifted just when they are having some effect. I hope this is the big surprise cause it’s a dud!

Romney could give 0bama a spelling lesson on T A Q I Y Y A and ask him to explain the difference between it, kitman and hudna, since 0bama lived in a Moslem country and studied at a madrassa. Or, Romney could spell out the differences for him, sura, hadith and qadi’s decision.

Possibly. But I think his campaign people realize they’ve waited far too long to try an Iran-agreement trick. Now, nobody, absolutely nobody, would believe them. Especially after so many other Obama and Company lies during this campaign season.

So, they have to come up with another October surprise. I bet it will be another promised giveaway program....
one that can be retracted or over-ruled after the election.

“Named after a village outside Mecca, the truce came six years after Muhammad and his followers abandoned Mecca for Yathrib, today’s Medina. This move, known as the hijra (emigration) is of enormous significance for the classical understanding of jihad, inasmuch as it sets a pattern of retreat followed by regrouping and rearming, which permits an attack on the territory previously left behind. In March 628 C.E., Muhammad and his followers sought to return to Mecca to perform a pilgrimage. At Hudaybiyya, Muhammad “marched till he reached al-Hudaybiyya which lies at the limit of the Haram [sacred territory of Mecca] area at a distance of nine miles from Mecca.” Muhammad and the rulers of Mecca, most of whom had yet to convert to Islam, negotiated a truce, the essence of which was to permit the Muslims to return unarmed on pilgrimage each year for the next decade. It came to an end two years later, however, following an infraction by a tribe allied to the Meccans. In 630, Muhammad entered Mecca with a small, armed force and took the city peacefully. Hudna, in other words, amounted to a temporary truce.”

Sure...will Iran also promise to immediately pull all its special ops troops out of Syria, stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah, recognize Israel, and give amnesty to all of its gay citizens it has condemned to death?

0bama sent a letter to Tehran assuring them that the U.S. will do nothing to help Israel. That takes that off of the table removing a big worry for them that might have made them think twice. Iran is good to go now with 0bama's blessing.

Im not sure he could do this at the last minute anyway, because I think it would need the consent of Congress. Weren’t the sanctions imposed after a vote by the legislature? So I don’t think that he could simply undo them.

LOL. No way. The Obama administration made a major mistake by leaking the story. Israel is pissed off because they were not kept informed. Agreeing to a one on one meeting bypasses the existing multilateral approach (5P+1), which will piss off our allies who are helping us with santions.

And it raises questions as to what the preconditions will be for such a meeting and what concessions will be offered by either side.

The Obama administration stepped into it big time because now they have to walk it back after leaking it to the NYT. So the question will be is the NYT making this stuff up or is the Obama adminsitration lying?

Axelrod and Plouffe made a major miscalculation. Obama will distance himself from this at the debate.

I read that Iran mumbled something about 1 on 1 talks possibly after the election. So the NYT maybe ran off half-cocked thinking that if it was said there were talks, it would reflect favorably on Odumbo. I think the NYT and possibly the administration were played by the Iranians, although I would think Amanutjob would want Odumbo reelected.

I believe that Plouffe and/or Axelrod thought this would help Obama before tomorrow night's debate on foreign policy. It would help undermine Romney's charge that Obama has not dissuaded Iran from its nuclear program and show that Obama's policies are working. I have no doubt the WH leaked this story.

One big problem: Axelrod and Plouffe only see things thru the prism of domestic policitics. They didn't figure on the international repercussions. Here is what Michael Oren, Israel's Amb to the US:

We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks, Mr. Oren said, rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased.

I don't think Jewish voters will appreciate these talks. Obama must now walk it back without losing face and hurting himself with the NYT and the rest of the liberal MSM.

Im not sure he could do this at the last minute anyway, because I think it would need the consent of Congress. Werent the sanctions imposed after a vote by the legislature? So I dont think that he could simply undo them.

I hate to say it, but congress really has no ability to enforce sanctions. As with immigration, Obama can simply choose not to have our navy (of which he is commander in chief) simply not enforce trade restrictions. Any normal congress would immediately impeach him, but the democrats are he!! bent on crating a dictatorship and would block any attempt at usurping the usurper's powers.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.